In relationships everywhere, both personal and professional, there exists an unspoken order of things, a tacit agreement governing things one does and does not do. For example, when inviting a group of friends to your home for a dinner party it is implicitly understood that none of the participants are to eat beforehand. No rule has been established stating: "THOSE WHO EAT PRIOR TO THE DESIGNATED TIME WILL BE SHOT", but everyone operates with that understanding anyways.
Implicit social rules like the one just mentioned are a psychological shortcut that allow us to successfully live in society without having to carry a fifty pound rule book with us everywhere we go. While this can be quite beneficial, problems can arise when people operate under different social rules, in the same setting, without knowing it.
Generally speaking, when social rules are violated we have three ways of dealing with said violations. We can ignore the problem and wait for it to build up until we explode, we can collaborate, openly communicate, and seek mutual understanding (stupid), or we can be awesome, be like tools, and use authoritative force to punish the rule breaker and make sure they never again deviate from our world view.
The challenge of unspoken social norms is most easily illustrated by examining different social rules between nations. For instance, in the United States most people greet each other by saying, "Hi, how are you?" When the inquiry is made into a person's well being (how are you) there is an implicit social rule that the respondent is not to give anything other than a positive answer, even if it is a lie. If someone provides a negative response to the inquiry the result is usually social discomfort, an awkward silence, and then dismissal.
 |
| This was a real conversation I had once. |
The aforementioned example is often how most of us deal with violations of unspoken rules: we just keep going like nothing happened. In romantic relationships ignoring problems of this nature generally results in awesome, awesome blow-ups.
 |
A little communication could have gone a long way in preventing this fight,
or this movie for that matter. |
Another approach to resolving misunderstandings of social rules is to collaborate towards a resolution. In collaboration all parties involved communicate, in a non-aggressive fashion, about their perceptions of the situation and their desires to work things out. In collaboration there are no winners and losers, and no one operates with a sense of inferiority or superiority. That's not to say that there is always full positional equality, but even if someone is holding authority they won't exercise it to enforce their will. The entire purpose of collaboration in social problem solving is to reach a level of mutual understanding and then find a solution that works for everyone. I know, I know, what kind of moron would ever want to solve problems with this approach right?
 |
| Nelson Mandella |
The best approach to dealing with violations of perceived social rules, and the one the great tools of the world use the most is *drumroll* authoritative force. In using authoritative force a person uses his/her real or imagined social position to dictate the actions and behaviors of others. If an individual believes a social rule has been violated, even when NO ONE else is aware of or believes in the said social rule, he can demand that people conform to his world view.
The thing that makes authoritative force so great is that it allows for absolute control over another person's behaviors whilst not requiring any actual communication to take place. If you want to be a tool do this, if you want to marry one seek this out in your mate. Having a partner in a relationship use the attitude of "do this/don't do this because I said so and don't try to tell me your side of things" allows for a wonderful world of oppression and misery, and isn't that what we're all looking for?
A friend told me she once heard a man say something that perfectly articulates the epicness of using authoritative force. Upon finding out that some of his peers disagreed with his views the man said: "Here's how it is: We are the head. You are the foot, or maybe an arm, but you are beneath us. You are not our equals. You are definitely beneath us." This line is so beautiful it makes me tear up like I've been watching reruns of Jersey Shore back when Snooki was attractive... Oh wait.
But think about it, isn't that man's statement just awesome? Let's break it down. He asserts that he is definitively more important than those he is addressing, and then illustrates through a visual metaphor how the hierarchy gives him final power in decision making. Never once in his remarks does he seek to collaborate and work to create a sense of equality, unity, and shared responsibility. He's not saying, "its my way or the highway." He's saying "You will bow and you will obey." There is no room for debate, and any attempts at voicing concerns will be ignored. While such a view is necessary in organizational settings characterized by a rigorous need for timely, informed, and immediately followed commands, like a military unit on the battlefield, it doesn't work well in more loosely structured environments, and it REALLY doesn't work well in romantic relationships - which is exactly why everyone should do it.
OK, so now that we've discussed social norms, and how we can deal with perceived violations of those norms, its time to get down to the nitty gritty and dissect how we can apply this to dating and marriage. Let's say that we have a newly-wed couple that has just moved into their new apartment. We'll call them Cindy and Stephen. Cindy and Stephen have not lived together before and are working to adjust to sharing their living space and time with each other in a degree they have never before experienced. They have no children, no pets, and work full-time jobs. Cindy gets done with work one hour before Stephen.
After a great honeymoon, and then several days of trying to move everything in to their new place Cindy and Stephen have normalized a bit and are ready to get into a routine. They've never talked about it, but they've both been thinking about it. Stephen, during a long day at work, thinks about how his mom would always have a hot meal ready for his dad when he came home. Cindy is a great cook, and Stephen cannot stop thinking about what she is going to have ready for him when
he comes home. He's been salivating all day just thinking about it.
Once his shift is over Stephen runs to his car and battles his way through traffic fantasizing about his meal, his hot wife, and how she's going to welcome him home like a war hero. He arrives home awaiting the smells of some delicious assemblage of meats and spices only to find Cindy at the counter having a Skype chat with one of her girlfriends. The only food in sight is a to go box from P.F. Chang's. Cindy, while talking to her friend says, "Work was so crazy this morning, but to make it up to us management took us out to eat at a nice restaurant," she turns to Stephen, "Hey hon, want to try some of this? There isn't much left, but it was really tasty."
Stephen gets a knot in his stomach. What is his wife doing?! She didn't even think about him. She's supposed to be the cook, care for him, and relieve all his stress from a long day at work! Yet here she is eating some nice meal and chatting away with her friend! She didn't even think about preparing something for him! Stephen feels blindsided. He can't help but think "this is not how its supposed to be."
Now, dear reader, Stephen has reached a crossroads, an apparently unspoken social norm has been violated (Cindy didn't cook for him) and he is having a hard time coping with it. To deal with this he has the three options we've already highlighted: he can ignore the issue and blow up about it later, he can collaborate with his wife, or he can tell her to RESPECT HIS AUTHORIT
AY! Each choice has a different set of behaviors to be followed and will yield different short and long term results.
The simplest choice is to ignore the issue. Stephen can stew about the dinner thing, and every time Cindy asks him, "Is something wrong," he can tell her everything's fine. Still, there will be an underlying tension that Cindy will spend sleepless night after sleepless night trying to figure out. Eventually, after not coming home to a hot meal often enough, Stephen will explode and go on a long tirade about what a selfish wife Cindy is. Cindy won't even know what's going on for the first five minutes of his tirade. When she figures it out, she'll laugh and try to explain things, but Stephen will be too mad to listen at this point, the fight will end in tears, but eventually they'll work it out. The couple may feel they're walking on eggshells at times, but it'll be OK. As you can see, going this route is a little toolish, but not enough to really be desirable.
The next choice is that of collaboration. Here Stephen would identify his concern to Cindy and then ask her what she thought. She'd likely apologize for the confusion and say that she grew up in a home where everyone cooked for themselves unless something was specifically arranged beforehand. *GASP!* All of a sudden both parties would realize that they had been operating under social rules that were very, very different. Subsequently, after achieving mutual understanding, Stephen and Cindy would come up with ideas together on how to deal with the concern, and then decide on which idea worked for both of them. Not only would neither one of them walk away feeling upset, but their relationship would be strengthened in that they would both feel like equal partners who were fully invested in the success of their relationship. If the thought of this just made you throw up a little you're not alone. I mean seriously, who would want a relationship like this?
The final choice Stephen has, and the best one, is for him to assert dominance over his wife and put her in her place (the kitchen). Here's how that would play out:
Stephen, upon realizing Cindy hasn't cooked for him, marches over to the laptop, peers in front of the webcam, and says, "Sorry, we have to go, something came up." He then slams the laptop shut. Cindy, shocked says, "What was that for?"
"What was that for?!" Steve replies, "Really?! You don't know?"
"No! I was just talking with a friend!"
"Yeah, well I was just working my tail off for you all day, thinking about coming home to a nice dinner."
"I'm sorry, what do you mean?"
"Where's dinner?"
"In the fridge. No one is stopping you from making something for yourself."
"Make something for myself? I don't make dinner. YOU make dinner."
"WHAT?! Says who?! Since when is that my exclusive responsibility?"
"Since always. That's how it is. I'm the husband and the head of the house. You do as I say."
"I WHAT?!"
"You heard me. That's how it is. If you don't like it you can leave."
Cindy all of a sudden finds herself at her own crossroads. She has just realized that she has apparently broken one of Stephen's unwritten social rules and that Stephen is going to enforce those rules as ruthlessly as necessary. She can either stick it to him, call him on it, and leave, or she can bow; she can submit to Stephen's authority and create a pattern that justifies his behavior and makes him a king among tools. What does she do? If she's smart she'll bow. If not, well, she clearly needs to start reading this blog.
The issues surrounding Stephen and Cindy's situation are in no way unique. Couples at every stage of their relationships go through this. The fact of the matter is that everyone sees the world a little differently, and most of the time that view is neither right nor wrong, just different. Dumb couples, ones where neither party is toolish, communicate openly about these differences and work patiently and lovingly to resolve them. Smart couples, the good guys, ensure that one person in the relationship relies on WIIFM (What's in it for Me?) and uses his or her authority to enforce behavior any time a social rule has been violated. The ultimate question is: how will you be?
